Skip to main content
10:00 am
not just one consultant. maybe you can go over the list of all the people that have looked at this as well as the independent 3 rd parties that have looked at this to date. >> okay. thank you. yes, the design guidance criteria were prepared by a security team from urs corporation security division led by denny's signs and acting by repeating repealing and designing with bob with security and bob from widely associates and kevin duran, and smoke and fire life
10:01 am
safety issues. so we have a comprehensive team looking at the work product being parade by urs. to say a few words of director harper's questions, the team first set out to establish kind of the level of importance and the level of protection for the facility as a whole and what was defined for our project was an ise medium for level of protection. so it's not the most stringent level of security protection, and the impacts for our project and the criteria for our
10:02 am
project are influenced a lot by the intended design and operation of the facility that the facility is intended to be a very open facility, a transit facility where people come to it expecting to come and go without delays and so forth. so some of the security implications or origination recognize those operational needs of the facility and are addressed surveillance and other issues, but a lot of the impact as i discussed at prior meetings are really what we would call multi-hazard design guidance criteria. there are many of the recommendations are in intended to ensure the continuity of operation of fire
10:03 am
sprinkler systems, communication systems, power systems and emergency exiting pathways across a broad range of incidents. of course in the bay area the first thing that always comes to mind is earthquakes but also potential man-made disasters. so that's a little more background on kind of the team composition and the kind of what was established as a basic line for the standard of care. perhaps bob could answer more questions. >> if i can ask a little bit about the process because maybe i misunderstand. my understanding was that more that dvs and u r s work together. are you saying that
10:04 am
urs came up with the plan and dvs evaluated it? >> yes. >> they work in separate stuff? >> yeah. the work product we have is the urs work product prepared in draft form. the design team assessed what they if elt the cost impacts would be and dvs and our other sme's wait in to help facilitate that dialogue and to suggest alternative ways of addressing the concerns. bob, in addition to although he specializes in the security realm is a structural engineer as well and can help bridge that security to design perspective and help
10:05 am
us optimize the solutions that we are addressing, the design objective. >> whose role sit to is it to look at the fiscal -- his role is to look at the space and make sure it's secure and possible. i think there is a 3rd lens that needs to look at what is more reasonable and fiscally effective use of our dollars. i think what i'm personally hung up on is that i look at a citywide budget and so when we talk about increasing cost for the terminal and we are saying either be go to phase 2 or other grants that munis is working on whether it's capital cost and thinking about our taxpayer dollars, it's hard to
10:06 am
swallow this increase. so i'm constantly looking at ways that we can cut this even more. roughly a third has been through interest of our security, design increases, another third is the increase of cost construction comes when the economy is doing well. there is stlaelths very little that we can do and impact that. the why i keep asking these questions is that i want to know that we are looking at every avenue and for me to talk to the security consultants is not going to help me hear that. i think it's important to hear from neutral ones, someone looking eight from at it from a larger perspective. >> i hear what you are saying. part of the confusion there wasn't a lot of time and we weren't able to get all the information. just so you know
10:07 am
we were looking at it from the fiscal end and one of bob's roles was to look at it from a fiscal lens and he's worked on the world trade center. urs would recommended something and he would say there is a cheaper way to do this. the finances team were also looking at it from a cost perspective. i will let bob talk about this. it's always looked at from a financial point of view. >> if i can just add to that, we have a lot of large projects that i think are kind of -- symbolic buildings or structures here in san francisco, so we are definitely taking a very conservative
10:08 am
approach and i look at the stadium and look at us building an arena on a pier and looking at a lot of different structures here in san francisco and i don't see the same level of rigor and when i look at new york, that has millions of people in the city, comparing to san francisco that where we have a million people in the city here in san francisco, so it's important to why when you scale it here to a terminal that is going to transit at the golden gate, at least for time being how to rises to some of the other buildings and structures we talk about. >> okay. let me try to address this as confidently as i can.
10:09 am
first of all, as maria mentioned, when we were involved in the project about two years ago, we looked at the urs recommendations for security and they identified a broad range of what are considered rational and identifying threats by law enforcement and intelligence communities. these involve a series of events and many recommendations that have been identified will had been the building survive a seismic event and the emergency responder community of the occupants of the building in an enhanced position for life safety and then there is the use of explosives, potential arsonists events or someone introducing something into air. this is from san francisco,
10:10 am
chicago, atlanta, houston or new york. these are published expectation by our law enforcement and friends down in washington. i think the east coast has been an unfortunate target and as we work around the country, we look at geographic opportunities that represent smaller or larger, and the answer is no. we have had events in washington and new york, i don't have the opportunity and denny's mentioned that she didn't have the opportunity to grant the relief based on where the country s we don't have the opportunity to look at ourselves. the issue of cost, these wide range of threats imply a broad range of protective design strategies. some of them involve the structure of the building, some involve the facade of the building, some
10:11 am
involve the fire protection system of the building and some involve the air handling of the building. when you look at threat and mitigation strategy you can spend a lot of money in spending on high level of protection. urs has researched the threats what's plausible and credible and the fatalities the building could endure. to your point, director harper, you can't build a building that will sustain no damage but on the other hand it's irresponsible to design a building without expectation to no damage. we are trying to expand on that. it was set by
10:12 am
the civil engineers society. a standard was identified that said the building should not engage in disproportion of damage and collapse. this is a highly constructed structure of size and steel. the enhancement of this building, fredz building to a minor degree is never a minor cost. we have an awful lot of ton aj and a lot of steel. i want to ensure that you the standard for the performance is a standard by every structural engineered. we don't want it to be
10:13 am
disproportionate. it's an industry best practical. we have a partnership as a security consulting and engineering firm with firms like thomas setey who is with blast design and the premiere of blast designs and they have worked with the pentagon and worked with the coals, and what we did was asked the executive director to allow to us bring in best of class people to say, you know, we have this explosive event threat that's been identified by urs, we have thomas seteyb one of the premier engineers in the world.
10:14 am
let's look at possible damage. we like to compete with each other and bring different viewpoints to the subjects because that's our responsibility. >> bob, can i, just top to be helpful with time can you go over the budgetary recommendations. we can go through all the dooms day scenarios. but we are more interested in the fs fiscal lens of this. >> we've had a series of threats, from a budget perspective. there are relatively and were relatively minor structural enhancement required because the building
10:15 am
was extra ordinarily robust. as the building begins to move, the structural design of the building had to take into consideration. there were recommendations made with respect to the steel members and the cast notes in an attempt to optimize the cost. we worked with kelly adam son team and partners, we attempted to identify in the glass design of the building ways to find a means to make that glass facade as safe as possible and material connections. for the metal facade you heard bob talked about a savings there. the engineering team in part of our guidance and part under
10:16 am
fred's guidance are working on that metal facade, not only the wonderful ace aesthetics he proposed to you and we found ways to enhance the opportunity for the sprinkler system in the building to survive through very minor and important motivations in modifications in the way the structure is designed and we introduced a loop piping system. this was a very inexpensive solution that increased the reliability of the sprinkler system enormously. another recommendation we made is the building is at tall enough so it wouldn't get so much pressure from the water system and they recommend and
10:17 am
additional fire pump. on the fire alarm system, we took a look at the redundancy system of putting of multiple devices and found a way to rewire the fire alarm system using alternate panels so they would have detectors wired to each so if the loss of one would allow the fire protection system survive. not completely, the fire department can still see the fire spread. on the standpoint of situational awareness we have a very comprehensive building. >> quickly on the sprinkler and alarm, what was the cost reduction there? >> i can give you the numbers. bob beck can do that? >> maybe we should have bob goes through the numbers. that's what i'm interested in. >> i wanted to give you the
10:18 am
process rational so although we are looking at the protection requirement we put together a world class team of engineers. each experts in fire protection, fire alarms, communication, structural design, hvac, so as recommendations came in from urs, we could not only validate whether they were rational, we looked at the team that they were assembling and with their very specific expertise in these areas try to find the best solution to achieve a rational set of protective design standards. i will turn it back over to bob. >> thank you. >> i also want to -- i think that no one here argues that this is not a world class proposal and i think that we are pleased to see that so much thought has been put into this. but i think the question the board is asking again and again
10:19 am
is are we looking at the most cost-effective measures in terms of taxpayer dollars and we need to establish that with a world class system. we can't get everything we want to see, obviously we want the platinum level but given the cost increases we have to ask these questions of how we can best prioritize the dollars that we have bought take without taking away from other projects or phase 2. if we can't do that, then of course we are going to move forward with what we are being proposed to today. i just want to explain why i'm asking these questions over again. >> yeah. thank you, chair. yes, i would just add to what maria said and what bob said that tgpa staff and programming management team in particular, i think we were at the
10:20 am
forefront of providing the tension, the balance that you are asking about from a fiscal perspective. we understand that our mandate is to lever the project on time and on budget. so, in looking at these recommendations and prior to making any recommendations to increase the budget, tjpa staff and management team have questioned the security teams, security sme's and the design team in their desired response to the guidance that was provided to try and drive the solutions to the most cost-effective means. we do
10:21 am
have several hundred individual design guidance criteria here ranging in an estimated impact from 10s to secure recommendation to see if there might not be altering means and of course with the security s me's we have from to provide a
10:22 am
closing access to the ground level. the munis bus plaza, buses are arriving with such frequency that the bus plaza is open for vehicles to enter and pick up passengers and exit and it was suggested that when the bus plot was not in operation or only a portion of the bus plaza was in operations or in circumstances of increased threat intelligence that we have a means to close access to
10:23 am
the bus plaza. the design team initially estimated came up with a concept to install at the fremont street entrance to the bus plaza through our conversation with the security s m e's and the urs team and design team discussed a number of potential alternatives including while a portion of the plaza was not in operation can we just park a bus there rather than in stalling balls there -- or to prevent threat
10:24 am
circumstances. ultimately the recommendation we settled upon was to install the wedge type barriers that you maybe familiar with rather than retractable ball ar, barriers that are in the down position where the roadway is open where compared to other areas where we are using practical ball arred would have design to meet the performance objectives and between the fremont street front aj of the plaza would be for millions of dollars less than the retractable bal ar. it's an example of the dialogue and that occurred >> also the gfrc, go from at an
10:25 am
as the result of the metal >> the g f r c ceiling system from the beginning of the design were proposed to be gfrc, the gfrc has a weight of about 17 pounds per square foot and from the beginning of the design, our design criteria was that those panels should remain this place in a seismic event. that they should not come down and this is under maximum credible event for the bay area here. that they should not come down or be displaced where they would represent a hazard in the
10:26 am
update they designed a system to include a rebound effect if there is a blast below that it pushes the ceiling up and comes back down for if it were above that it suspends the ceiling and there were a number of recommendations made relative to impulses that the framing system that supports the gfrc, should withstand. and that was going to have an impact on the 6-and-a-half million throughout all the
10:27 am
systems in the building. we had previously looked at the opportunities of switching to a metal ceiling because of the complexity of the ceiling systems. there was not a significant -- we didn't see a significant or the design team didn't project a significant situation from gfrc to metal and with the potential impact with the threats of those ceilings coming down that's when we directed the design team to switch alternatives that because the metal ceilings are on the order of 2 pounds per square foot which is a different situation if one of those metal panels come down
10:28 am
rather than gfrc panel came down which is a different criteria. so not are we only able to avoid that impact with the ceiling systems, but the design team is going to be able to bring the cost of the ceilings system from a base design perspective down by several million additional dollars. that's a second example of the dialogue that occurred between the tjpa staff, the design team and the two sets of the security consultants. >> and the glass. can we, i actual have questions back to the presentation. the opaque grant, the pedestrian elements. how does that help with the production cost? >> first, within our existing
10:29 am
budget, anywhere where we can find additional funding to address anything within our current budget, a specific grand application, then it helps make other funds available that can then be used for other sources. at the time we filed the opaque grant application we were aware of the funding that the baseline budget was considering would not be available, so, the 10.2 was part of a solution of back filling the unavailability of the funding. now it's a factor in a much bigger picture. >> so when you say, back filling the funds that are

March 25, 2013 10:00am-10:30am PDT

TOPIC FREQUENCY San Francisco 5, Urs 4, New York 3, Us 3, Harper 2, Bob 2, Fremont 2, Denny 2, Washington 2, Bob Beck 1, Thomas Setey 1, Thomas Seteyb 1, Kevin Duran 1, Kelly Adam 1, Sme 1, Chicago 1, Houston 1, Atlanta 1, Tjpa 1, Gfrc 1
Network SFGTV2
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 24 (225 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 544
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color